The Supreme Court of India on Friday (October 17) refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) decision to increase the nomination fee for contesting State Bar Council elections to ₹1,25,000, up from the earlier ₹9,000.

A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter before the petitioners, advocates Manish Jain and Pradeep Kumar, ultimately withdrew the plea after the Court expressed reluctance to entertain it.

Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the BCI’s circular (No. BCI:D:6880/2025(Council-STBC’s), dated September 25, 2025) imposes an unreasonable and arbitrary financial barrier, making it impossible for young or less affluent lawyers to participate in the electoral process.

The counsel submitted that raising the nomination fee from ₹9,000 to ₹1.25 lakh was exorbitant and disproportionate, with no relation to the standing of a candidate at the Bar. It was urged that nomination fees should be linked to professional seniority, similar to the structure followed in Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections.

“From ₹9,000 it goes straight to ₹1,25,000. Someone who joined the profession two or three years ago would find it impossible to contest,” counsel submitted.

Justice Kant, responding humorously, remarked, “Let them contest later. What’s the tearing hurry? Your supporters will take care of the amount.”

When the Bench began dictating the dismissal order, counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the High Court, noting that similar matters were pending before some High Courts. The Court, however, did not record such liberty, dismissing the case as withdrawn.

The impugned circular was issued following the Supreme Court’s order dated September 24, 2025, in W.P.(C) No. 1319/2023, which directed the completion of long-pending State Bar Council elections by January 31, 2026. Acting on this directive, the BCI instructed all State Bar Councils to form election committees and conduct elections—while simultaneously revising the nomination fee to ₹1.25 lakh.

According to the petitioners, the BCI justified the hike citing a shortage of funds due to a prior Supreme Court judgment in 2024 that reduced enrolment fees. However, the petitioners contended that such justification was baseless, asserting that State Bar Councils, including the Bar Council of Delhi, are financially sound, with Delhi alone reportedly holding ₹99 crore in reserves.

Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petition alleged that the BCI’s decision violated the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21, contending that:

• The excessive nomination fee curtails equal opportunity to contest and participate in professional democracy.

• It restricts representation to financially well-off advocates, creating a divide between “haves” and “have-nots.”

• The decision promotes money and muscle power, undermining fairness in elections.

The petition described the measure as “an antithesis to democracy”, arguing that such a steep fee “deprives voters of a level playing field and limits their choice of candidates.”

The advocates sought quashing of the September 25 circular and requested the Court to direct that upcoming Bar Council elections be conducted strictly in line with its earlier orders, without any financially exclusionary measures.

However, with the Supreme Court declining to entertain the plea, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn, leaving the petitioners the option to pursue remedies before the respective High Courts.

Case Title: Manish Jain v. Bar Council of India

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 1005/2025